Re: [PATCH 4/4] fs: remove inode_lock from iput_final andprune_icache

[Al Viro]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 06:47:46AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 octobre 2010 ?? 05:40 +0100, Al Viro a ??crit :
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 03:23:04PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Now that inode state changes are protected by the inode->i_lock and
> > > the inode LRU manipulations by the inode_lru_lock, we can remove the
> > > inode_lock from prune_icache and the initial part of iput_final().
> > > 
> > > instead of using the inode_lock to protect the inode during
> > > iput_final, use the inode->i_lock instead. This protects the inode
> > > against new references being taken while we change the inode state
> > > to I_FREEING, as well as preventing prune_icache from grabbing the
> > > inode while we are manipulating it. Hence we no longer need the
> > > i???ode_lock in iput_final prior to setting I_FREEING on the inode.
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > ... the hell?  There's more such damage elsewhere in the thread; what's
> > going on?
> > --
> 
> Maybe its on your side, no problem here on my copy.

"i\xe1\xb9\x89ode_lock", i.e. 'n' turned into U+1E49, aka "latin small letter
n with line below".  I doubt that it's MTA braindamage.

In the first patch there's 

- * invalidate_inodes    - attempt to free all inodes on a
+ * nvalidate_inodes    - attempt to free all inodes on a

and I _really_ doubt that anything in mail system is capable of something
that elaborate.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/